PEDRO P. PECSON, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ERLINDA TAN, JUAN NUGUID, MAMERTO G. NEPOMUCENO, ANSELMO O. REGIS AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals (8th Division)
in CA-G.R. CV No. 23910, entitled “Pedro Pecson v. Erlinda Tan, et
al.” The said decision affirmed in toto the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No.
Q-41471.

In Civil Case No. Q-41471, petitioner filed a complaint to annul
the sale at a public auction conducted by respondent Anselmo O. Regis, (City
Treasurer of Quezon City) of petitioner’s property for non-payment of real
estate taxes, alleging that the sale was made without prior notice to him. The complaint further alleged that
petitioner was not notified of his right to redeem the property, that the title
to the property was transferred by respondent Register of Deeds of Quezon City
to respondent Mamerto G. Nepomuceno (the buyer at the public auction) and that
the latter sold the property to respondents Erlinda Tan and Juan Nuguid.

The major issue before
the trial court was whether the sale of the property by respondent Regis
was valid, which in turn depended on whether petitioner was duly notified of
the public auction. In its decision,
the trial court upheld the validity of the public auction, saying that the
notices of the auction sale published in a newspaper of general circulation
were notices in rem; that the fact that the notices to the
petitioner were sent to “No. 79 Paquita Street, Sampaloc, Manila”
instead of “No. 1009 Paquita St., Sampaloc, Manila,” which petitioner claimed to be the proper
address to send the notices to him, was inconsequential; and that petitioner
failed to pay the real estate
taxes on the property.

In an Order dated February 8, 1989, the trial court amended its
decision by adding the statement:

“The 4-door edifice of plaintiff on the subject lot is,
however, another thing which is not a subject of the instant litigation.”

On a motion for reconsideration by respondents Tan and Nuguid,
the trial court in its order dated June 16, 1989, reiterated its previous
ruling that the 4-door building constructed by petitioner on the lot in
controversy was not covered by the tax sale but awarded said respondents the
amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

Failing to get any relief from the Court of Appeals, petitioner
went to this Court wherein he reiterates the issue of the validity of the
public auction of his property for non-payment of taxes on the ground that the
notices to him were sent to the wrong postal address.

The records show that petitioner was the registered owner of a
parcel of land in Quezon City consisting of 256 sq. meters and covered by TCT
No. 79912 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

For non-payment of realty taxes, petitioner’s property was sold
at public auction on November 12, 1980 by respondent Regis.

Notices of sale were sent to petitioner at “No. 79 Paquita
Street, Sampaloc, Manila,” and were published in the Times Journal on
October 6, 13, and 30, 1980.

A final notice to exercise the right of redemption dated
September 14, 1981 was sent to petitioner at “No. 79 Paquita Street,
Sampaloc, Manila.”

There being no redemption made after one-year from the date of the auction sale, a Final Bill of
Sale was executed on April 19, 1982 by
respondent Regis in favor of respondent
Nepomuceno.

In an order dated July 12, 1982, the Regional Trial Court, Quezon
City, consolidated title in favor of respondent Nepomuceno and directed the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel TCT No. 79912 and issue a new one in
lieu thereof, in the name of respondent Nepomuceno.

On February 3, 1983, respondent Register of Deeds cancelled TCT
No. 79912 in the name of petitioner and issued TCT No. 302292 in the name of
respondent Nepomuceno.

On October 25, 1983, respondent Nepomuceno executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale on the subject property in favor of respondents Tan and Nuguid
for P103,000.00.

On December 8, 1983, the Register of Deed of Quezon City
cancelled respondent Nepomuceno’s title to the property and issued TCT No.
308506 in the names of respondents Tan and Nuguid.

In a Rule 45 appeal, as in this case, this Court can only pass
upon questions of law. The issues
raised by the petition involve only questions of fact. These are:

(1) Were the notices required under Section 73
of the Real Property Tax Code properly sent to the delinquent taxpayer?
(Petition, pp. 4-12; Rollo, pp. 5-13)

(2) Were respondents
Erlinda Tan and Juan Nuguid buyers in good faith? (Petition, pp. 13-14; Rollo, pp. 14-15)

(3) Were the requirements of posting and
announcement of the sale under the Real Property Tax Code complied with? (Petition, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 13-14)

Petitioner argues that respondent Regis sent the notices to him
at “No. 79, Paquita Street, Sampaloc, Manila” which was not his
address. He claims that his correct
Manila address is “No. 1009 Paquita St., Sampaloc” and his correct
Quezon City address is “No. 79, Kamias Road, Quezon City.” He admits
that on the dates the notices were mailed, he was no longer residing in Manila
but in Quezon City.

The governing law in this case is P.D. No. 464, known as the Real
Property Tax Code. Section 73 thereof,
with the epigraph “Advertisement of sale of real property at public auction,” in pertinent
part, provides:

“x x x             x x x                 x x x

Copy of the notices shall forthwith be sent either by registered
mail or by messenger, or through the barrio captain, to the delinquent taxpayer, at the address as shown in the tax
rolls or property tax record cards of the municipality or city where the property
is located, or at his residence, if known to said treasurer or barrio
captain. Provided, however, that a
return of the proof of service under oath shall be filed by the person making
the service with the provincial or city treasurer concerned.”

Under the said provisions of the law, notices of the sale of the
public auction may be sent to the delinquent taxpayer, either (i) at the
address as shown in the tax rolls or property tax record cards of the
municipality or city where the property is located or (ii) at his residence, if
known to such treasurer or barrio captain.

Petitioner does not claim that the notices issued from 1980 to
1983 should have been sent to him at his residence in “No. 79 Kamias Road,
Quezon City,” his residence since 1965 and where the property in
litigation is located. What he claims
is that the notices should have been sent to him at his address at “No.
1009 Paquita St. Sampaloc” even if he was no longer residing there because
letters sent to him at the said address were forwarded to him by the occupants
of his former house.

As found by the Court of Appeals, what appeared in the records of the Office of the
City Treasurer of Quezon City as the address of petitioner was “1009
Paquita, Manila,” and below the number 1009 was the number
“79”. From this entry, one
can deduce that the taxpayer had transferred his residence to “No. 79
Paquita, Sampaloc, Manila” from “No. 1009 Paquita, Sampaloc,
Manila.” In the register for the tax years starting from 1982 (Exh. S;
also Exh. 3), the address of petitioner was recorded as “79 Paquita,
Mla.” The Court of Appeals advanced the theory that the number
“79” was furnished by petitioner himself, basing its conclusion on the address given by petitioner in his
complaint, which was “No. 79 Kamias Road,
Quezon City.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that the employees in charge of
sending notices in the Treasurer’s Office were not blameworthy in relying on
the available tax records.

Petitioner’s contention that he would have received the notices
had they been sent to “No. 1009 Paquita, Sampaloc, Manila,” because
the occupants thereof forwarded the letters addressed to him to his Quezon City
residence, loses force when one considers that the Court of First Instance of
Quezon City sent him a notice, in connection with the proceedings for the
consolidation of title, at “No. 1009 Paquita Street, Sampaloc,
Manila,” which remained “unclaimed.”

For this misfortune that befell petitioner, he has nobody to
blame but himself. As a property owner
and a school teacher at that, he should know that if an owner fails to pay the
real estate taxes on a property, the said property shall be sold at public
auction to recover the delinquent taxes. When petitioner’s property was sold at a public auction in December,
1980, the tax delinquency must have accumulated for several years. It was only on July 12, 1982 that the order
for consolidation of title in the name of respondent Nepomuceno was issued and
it was only on December 8, 1983 that the title over the property was transferred
to respondents Tan and Nuguid. All
throughout these years, petitioner never displayed an interest in paying the
real estate taxes on the property. Worse, he introduced improvements thereon without reporting the same for
tax purposes. Had he reported the
improvements he had introduced on the property, the Office of the Treasurer of
Quezon City could have been informed of petitioner’s new address in Quezon
City.

Petitioner also questions the evidence presented by respondent
Regis regarding his compliance with the requirements of the Real Property Tax
Code on the posting and announcement of
the notices of the sale. (Petition, pp.
9-13; Rollo, pp. 10-14) In this regard,
said respondent presented the certificates-affidavits of eight employees under the supervision
of the Market Superintendent and two employees of the City Treasurer’s
Office. Like the issue of whether
respondents Tan and Nuguid were buyers in
good faith, the issue on the compliance with the posting of the notices and
announcement of the sale, is a question of fact which this Court will not inquire into and review the
evidence relied upon by the
lower courts to support their findings (Banaag v. Bartolome, 204 SCRA 924
[1991]; Ching Sui Yong v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 187 [1990]).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the
decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Griño-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.